Talk:MINOS

Results?

Hello! Has the MINOS experiment yeilded any results yet?--Dr.Worm 07:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

early indications that neutrinos travel faster than light?

A friend of mine quoted this article: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0706.0437v3 as saying that "The Minos neutrino experiment (completely independent) found an estimate of

(v − c)/c = 5.1 ± 1.2 (statistical) ± 2.6 (systematic) × 10**−5

where statistical and systematic are their estimates of these two different types of errors." - that neutrinos go *very slightly* faster than light.

I'm not physicist enough to tease this information out of the cited article, but given the recent CERN announcement, this might be worth considering for inclusion in this article. --Alvestrand (talk) 07:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Cosmic rays

This article says The far detector has been fully operational since summer 2003, and has been taking cosmic ray and atmospheric neutrino data since early in its construction. The neutrino data is discussed, but nothing is said about the cosmic ray data. Please add something about the cosmic ray data. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I've add a bit about the cosmic rays to the result sectionDja1979 (talk) 13:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Neutrino Speed

MINOS reports a 15 ns difference (+/-30) in arrival times. That information (by itself) is totally NOT useful in comparing speeds. The same "information" is repeated in the Neutrino article, and in the Measuring Neutrino Speed article. Here is a calculation: d=735 km. c = 299792 km/s; t = d÷c = 0.00245 s; Δt = 15e-9 sec; Δt/t = 6e-6 = 0.0006%. The difference between the two speeds is about 0.0006% plus or minus 0.0012%. You see, there is a difference between data and information. I am making the change to all 3 articles (I didn't check for its existence in other articles.) If I had more time, I'd also edit the blurb about "Further experiments, since MINOS made its last measurements over a month BEFORE this result was published. (And unless neutrinos do go back in time (are supraluminal) it isn't too likely that more measurements are going to be made. Perhaps more data is going to be analyzed?) While I'm at it I'd also suggest an edit of the horrible paragraph which discusses results at 68% Confidence. What kind of silliness was that?? It implies that a result can't be "consistent" with two different hypotheses and then explains that yes, it can. Wow. I like the use of "central value" but the rest is pretty poor. The result's central value was slightly faster than c, but the difference between the neutrinos speed and c was not significant at the 99% confidence level. And rather than "corrected" (implying an error was made to those who don't understand that "corrected" means "adjusted" or "refined") I'd suggest that "refined" be used: "After the detectors for the project were upgraded in 2012, MINOS corrected their initial result..." to "After the detectors for the project were upgraded in 2012, MINOS refined their initial result..." and remove "Further measurements are going to be conducted." 216.96.77.125 (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 8 March 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Seems like a convincing enough case that it's better known as the acronym, and that isn't ambiguous. MINOS is the long term title for this as well, so would be the correct title even if there had been no consensus. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 12:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

---

Main injector neutrino oscillation search → MINOS – Per WP:COMMONNAME basically. Everyone calls this MINOS, in papers, in every day life, and pretty much anytime. In particle physics acronyms are nearly always invented first, and then you invent something to match it. This is why all our other articles are at LHCb, NuMI, MoEDAL, TOTEM, SOLEIL, and so on. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose – We usually avoid acronyms except those that are well known. This one is only known in a specialist community. Dicklyon (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support; If the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation, then it is fine to use the acronym. There are no other major MINOS meanings either [[1]]. This is mainly because, per WP:ACRONYMTITLE: "In general, if readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to only recognise the name by its acronym, then the acronym should be used as a title." The OP's comments as well as a quick search support that this is the case.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  06:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MINOS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070919005158/http://www.fnal.gov/pub/presspass/press_releases/minos_3-30-06.html to http://www.fnal.gov/pub/presspass/press_releases/minos_3-30-06.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)